You all have probably seen this on the SB front page, but if not, Sheril at ‘The Intersection’ has big news: Obama answered some of their Science Debate 2008 questions!

Im annoyed at Q6 (H5N1 flu? Ugh.), but the rest are good… and Obamas answers are great… I kinda teared up a little. Hes actually going to support science. I dont just mean with $$, I mean his answers make it clear he is listening to scientists when they talk about stem cells and gene therapy and climate change…

Related

Comments

This is another great opportunity to tell the campaign strategy apologists who were, in a previous thread, spouting tedious nonsense about why, for political reasons, candidates shouldn’t worry about science and about how we hadn’t ought to expect them to to kindly drink a gallon of colon lavage solution so that they might better blow it out their asses.

All this Science Debates 2008 thing has show that is that many in the scientific community are not reality based when it comes to matters outside of science.
No serious candidate is going to take part in any forum unless either they think they have the advantage or they think that they have no other choice.

So, “a lurker”, you can blow it out your ass.

The attention deficient scatterbrain John Kwok then wrote about a lurker’s pompous diatribe:

A good analysis regarding the necessity of a science debate, and I write this even though I do support one.

While I’m sure I’ll get many a chance to say this in the future, John Kwok, you can blow this one out your ass, too, right after you’ve dug that fence rail out from between your balls.

Then, further downthread, antipathetic “Mike” decided to type (no doubt after composing his rough draft on his wall with his own feces):

Effective teaching and communication requires framing information in a manner that the audience can most effectively understand, as opposed to poking them in the eye and telling them to eat their science. blah blah blah You and I know that Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers don’t represent the scientific community, but how is the general public supposed to know that? No, I’m not in the least bit surprised that even a politician that understands the problem of the far right anti-science campaign will run from a “science debate” blah blah

Recent discoveries indicate that adult skin cells can be reprogrammed to behave like stem cells; these are exciting findings that might in the future lead to an alternate source of highly versatile stem cells. However, embryonic stem cells remain the “gold standard,” and studies of all types of stem cells should continue in parallel for the foreseeable future.

Am disappointed that Obama did not answer more specifically on certain issues, like committing us to renewed interplanetary exploration, with certain objectives (e. g. permanent lunar occupation by 2015; manned exploration of Mars by the 2020s). This is exactly what is irritating me with his generic responses.

Which improved nuclear technologies is he referring to, especially when France has led the world in safe electrical generation from nuclear fission power plants for decades?

As a resident cynic, I must say his answers are written similar to much of the post-modern literary criticisms I have read. A good example of this is:
” First, I have proposed programs that, taken together, will increase federal investment in the clean energy research, development, and deployment to $150 billion over ten years. This research will cover:”
Ok, let’s see what research he’s talking about…
“Basic research to develop alternative fuels and chemicals”
Well, that could be millions of possibilities, are they carbon-based alternative fuels such as biofuels or synthetic gasoline? Are these alternative fuels/chemicals including hydrogen? What about geothermal, hydroelectric, and tidal energy? This answers NOTHING, it just says “yea, I want to develop alternatives..” without saying anything about what they are. Next:
“Equipment and designs that can greatly reduce energy use in residential and commercial buildings – both new and existing”
Really now? I don’t think a more vague statement exists, are there any specific technologies you have in mind or is this just another generic “oh yea, I’m thinking of something.”
“New vehicle technologies capable of significantly reducing our oil consumption”
Doesn’t this go with the “alternative fuels” group?
“Advanced energy storage and transmission that would greatly help the economics of new electric-generating technologies and plug-in hybrids”
Can’t the previous two go together? And how would he “enhance” this research? It’s ALREADY BEING DONE. Recent advances in Li-ion batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, and so forth are making it possible within the next 5 years to have a zero emission vehicles which are viable.
“Technologies for capturing and sequestering greenhouse gases produced by coal plants”
Which one? Also, CCS technology makes the plant require 25% more energy to operate thus meaning you actually use MORE hydrocarbons! Our problem isn’t just CO2, it’s also COST of hydrocarbon fuels.
“A new generation of nuclear electric technologies that address cost, safety, waste disposal, and proliferation risks”
Ok, which generation nuclear reactors? II? III? Invest in IV? Seriously, if you’re going to make a claim as to what will happen, at least say HOW you plan on making it happen.

Also, Mr. Obama-doesn’t-have-a-plan-for-putting-us-on-Mars, as soon as your boy, the pro-ID McCain, opens his mouth and issues even the tiniest whisper of global warming denialism or pro-life crackpottery or some nonsense about creationism, I am going to ram it so far up your ass that you’ll be coughing up campaign adspeak for a month.

As David Brin pointed out on his blog, Obama mentioned science and technology as pressing national needs six times in his speech at the Dems convention.

In Brin’s words: “Once, my friends, is perfunctory. Twice is policy. Six times is a call to action. That wasn’t for political impact — (what fraction of the TV audience cared?) — but an expression of perceived importance.”

Overall, pretty good although it was, as Jared has pointed out, lacking detail on some critical issues.

I found this particularly encouraging:

Scientific and technological information is of growing importance to a range of issues. I believe such information must be expert and uncolored by ideology.

I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees.

Given the the Republicans’ sizeable and extremely vocal pro-life and creationist constituencies, I doubt there’s any way McCain could make such a commitment (or at least to do so and mean it).

Well, since I am not American my opinion doesn’t matter the slightest bit anyway, but whether or not Obama and/or McCain answer these questions doesn’t change much… It is 1) obvious from the beginning that Obama is less anti-science than McCain, 2) there will be around 0 science-interested people voting for McCain anyway, 3) both Obama’s and McCain’s promises change from black to white and back depending who they’re talking to, therefore we would be well advised not to take their words too seriously.
Maybe I’m just too disillusioned about democracy, not only related to the United States.

Mr. Kwoks’ enthusiasm for manned space exploration is sadly misplaced. As physicists Bob Park and Steven Weinberg, whose knowledge and expertise is at least equal to his, have stated, the manned space program is a giant waste of money relative to its impact on scientific discovery. A far larger scientific bang for the buck is obtainable from unmanned robotic probes.

From Bob Park:

“2. LUNACY: HAS ANYONE THOUGHT THIS THROUGH?
This week, according to today’s Science magazine, Senator Obama supported the Bush plan to return humans to the Moon. Replay Apollo? Not exactly; Obama wants a more international effort. You can see how well that worked with the ISS. Meanwhile in Cape Canaveral, McCain was backing the Bush plan to build a successor to the shuttle. Of course, he was in Florida, and that’s what politicians all say when they’re in Florida, but he did not favor returning to the Moon.”

Thanks for your insightful remarks. Obama’s prescriptions for energy conservation have not been as extensive as McCain’s with regards to building energy efficient automobiles. As far as I am concerned, Obama’s answers merely demonstrate how much of an intellectual lightweight that he is.

On a more personal note, I’ve worked with a Barack Obama; a charismatic Afro-American who has mismanaged an annual scholarship fundraising event here in NYC for disadvantaged students attending our undergraduate alma mater. Unfortunately he is still active in the NYC alumni club and is busy screwing things up. He tried running for office in the national alumni association, but thankfully, lost his electoral bid. Hopefully, with any luck, this will happen to Caesar Barack Obamaus, whom I regard as much a phony as the “Barack Obama” I know.

John, I usually don’t respond to claims such as your’s, but I figured I’ll make an exception while waiting for a visit from Gustav. While McCain has a decent energy policy, that’s not why I think he’s a completely ineffable moron.
“Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control”
Waste of money
“Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts”
Blatant bullshit
“We need more choice and competition in education.”
How about, you know, not teachers with a background in “education” but instead in the subject they are to teach? How about better pay for those with degrees in the field they want to teach than those with general “education” degrees?
“NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives”
“YES on $75M for abstinence education”
So, $25M more and you get a program that works, he’s against it…
“YES on declaring memorial prayers and religious symbols OK at schools”
Not at public schools, they aren’t, any religious symbol gives rise to tensions of those not of the same religion by putting it out in the public light.

As a McCain supporter, how can you possibly accuse Obama of being an intellectual lightweight? Have you overlooked the fact that he’s a graduate of Harvard Law School and, whilst there, was elected president of the Harvard Law Review? What about the time he spent teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago? Does your boy have any academic achievements of note? Can he even locate Afghanistan on a map?

And then we get to the really good stuff…

I’ve worked with a Barack Obama; a charismatic Afro-American…

Holy jebus, you didn’t really write that, did you?

*headdesk*

I thought you’d really hit the jackpot when you were expressing concerns that Obama may be a totalitarian dictator in the making because he managed to put on a good show at the Democratic Convention, but now you’re really outdone yourself. Congratulations.

And for fuck’s sake, enough with the “Caesar Barack Obamaus” nonsense. It got old on the last thread you were peddling it on but now it’s really boring.

McCain was my US Senator for approximately a decade when I resided in Arizona, and I have ample respect for his intellect and leadership abilities; traits which I have yet to see from Obama.

On “Face the Nation” this morning, both Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman noted that Obama is the least experienced person running for President in a century. Independently, they noted that our nation needs – and deserves – the experienced, quite capable, leadership which McCain can offer.

Experienced capable leadership that would not:

1) Urge a military strike on an ally, Pakistan, for harboring Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents (Incidentally an ally which posses nuclear weapons and first strike missile launching capabilities against our soldiers stationed in the Middle East, friendly Gulf States like Dubai, and probably Israel too?).

2) Advise Russia to talk to Georgia via the UN Security Council, not realizing that Russia has a seat on that council with veto power (Incidentally, for this reason, Putin apparently favors Obama as the next President of the USA. The New York Times reported two days ago that Putin would not like to see McCain as our next President. I presume that is because Putin realizes that Obama would be someone who’d be more willing to sacrifice Georgia’s, Ukraine’s and maybe Poland’s territorial integrity to satisfy Russian imperialist interests.).

3) Explain that he is for clean, reliable nuclear power without specifying which technologies are available for such cleanliness and reliability (Technology which exists apparently in France, since nuclear fission power has provided safe, reliable electricity – up to 40% of the country’s needs – for decades.

As far as I am concerned, Obama is a phony. I’ve seen his kind before.

On a more personal note, I’ve worked with a Barack Obama; a charismatic Afro-American who has mismanaged an annual scholarship fundraising event here in NYC for disadvantaged students attending our undergraduate Ivy League alma mater. Unfortunately he is still active in the NYC alumni club and is busy screwing things up. He tried running for office in the national alumni association, but thankfully, lost his electoral bid. Hopefully, with any luck, this will happen to the real Obama too, whom I regard as much a phony as the “Barack Obama” I know.

All this Science Debates 2008 thing has show that is that many in the scientific community are not reality based when it comes to matters outside of science.

No serious candidate is going to take part in any forum unless either they think they have the advantage or they think that they have no other choice.

So, “a lurker”, you can blow it out your ass.

How sweat and rational of you.

Answer me one thing. How has the answering of this questionnaire changed one thing that I wrote?

ScienceDebate 2008 is still not going to happen. Unless I am have been really, really confused ScienceDebate 2008 was far more than the candidates (or rather more likely their staffs) answering questionnaires. The candidates were supposed to show up, in person, to a debate about science policy.

So what have we learned? Obama is far more science friendly than George W. Bush. Well duh. Bush’s contempt for views other than his own, for evidence, for intellectualism, experts, etc. would made any of his unscientific views and positions completely unsurprising even if we did not all know about them. Bush’s science problems are caused by larger problems which show themselves all over the place. Treaty prevents us from doing something? It is quaint. Facts show what we say is wrong? Ignore them. Experts? Ignore them. Allies? Ignore them.

How has the answering of this questionnaire changed one thing that I wrote?

What you wrote hasn’t changed at all — your insufferable fappery is still there, and it looks exactly the same as when you first beat it out all over the thread. What has changed is that we now have tangible evidence that your condescension towards scientists who wanted a policy debate was utterly, though not surprisingly, misplaced.

On a more personal note, I’ve worked with a Barack Obama; a charismatic Afro-American who has mismanaged an annual scholarship fundraising event here in NYC for disadvantaged students attending our undergraduate alma mater.

John, that is uncalled for.

That some charismatic blacks are crooks is not surprising — indeed I would expect it. Just like I would expect it for charismatic (and uncharismatic) white persons. To use the fact that you known an worthy charismatic black as evidence against Obama is a non sequitur and rather offensive.

On a more personal note, I’ve worked with a Barack Obama; a charismatic Afro-American who has mismanaged an annual scholarship fundraising event here in NYC for disadvantaged students attending our undergraduate Ivy League alma mater. Unfortunately he is still active in the NYC alumni club and is busy screwing things up. He tried running for office in the national alumni association, but thankfully, lost his electoral bid. Hopefully, with any luck, this will happen to the real Obama too, whom I regard as much a phony as the “Barack Obama” I know.

Since your first reference to this “charismatic Afro-American” as a “Barack Obama” isn’t in quotes but your last one is, I’m left confused. Did you mean to suggest that his name actually is “Barack Obama”, or that “Barack Obama” is your new euphemism for any black dude you happen to resent?

Don’t even think that I despise someone because of his racial, ethnic or religious background. The person I am referring to has personality traits that are all too similar to Obama’s, except that Obama is a smoother operator than the one I know. But still, both are empty suits. Neither one is as distinguished as the current president of my undergraduate alma mater, who is a remarkable person, woman and Afro-American.

At the same event I organized for Dick Morris back in 2002, I also had the pleasure of meeting noted Afro-American civil rights leader Roy Innis (This was an event organized in honor of both Morris and Innis, and yes, Innis is yet another prominent Stuy alum. Other distinguished Afro-American alumni include two dropouts: jazz musician Thelonious Monk and conservative economist Thomas Sowell. So under no circumstances should you even dare suggest that I am prejudiced towards Afro-Americans. No, I am prejudiced only towards phonies like the “Barack Obama” I know as well as the bona fide real one.).

Newsweek has just published this rather insightful look into McCain’s character and intellect that I find quite revealing:

What you wrote hasn’t changed at all — your insufferable fappery is still there, and it looks exactly the same as when you first beat it out all over the thread. What has changed is that we now have tangible evidence that your condescension towards scientists who wanted a policy debate was utterly, though not surprisingly, misplaced.

How about answering the question instead of avoiding it?

There was not and there will not be a science policy only debate. There was never any chance of one.

That one candidate answered the questionnaire and the other promising to do so does not change that one bit. That Obama and McCain have aides that can answer science related questions that the candidates (we hope) will read then sign is not exactly earth shattering.

I am certain anyone who has met the President of Brown University (which I have done) would agree with me that she is far more credible, far more accomplished and far more distinguished than Barack Obama. Her biography is far more impressive than Obama’s will ever be. If he’s elected President, I’m certain that he’ll be among our worst, simply because of his lack of experience for this position. A harsh assessment which both Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman would agree with.

5. National Security. Science and technology are at the core of national security like never before. What is your view of how science and technology can best be used to ensure national security and where should we put our focus?

Dustin, whilst I agree with the sentiment of your statement, I too must make a pedantic point. Technically speaking, a goat is also a “goatfucker”.

Having seen many a David Attenborough series (some strangely notable for obsessions with animal mating rituals), I can assure you that this particular action (between consenting goats) is far more interesting than the ramblings of one Mr. Kwok.

However, I must admit that I am currently at a loss for a suitable replacement word ðŸ˜‰

(The last three are distinguished fellow alumni of my high school. I’ve met Innis, helping organize an alumni event held in his – and Dick Morris’ (another notable alumnus) – honor for our high school alumni association back in 2002. Dr. Simmons – whom I have met twice – is the president of my undergraduate alma mater, Brown University.).

I don’t see them as great Afro-Americans, but as great Americans of Afro-American ancestry.

I believe I am entitled to call a spade a spade, and both the “Barack Obama” I know and the real one are charismatic empty suits who haven’t accomplished anything substantial period. Moreover, in the case of the real Barack Obama, I still have many questions such as:

1) Why hasn’t he discussed his Indonesian childhood?

2) If he finds Reverend Wright’s remarks offensive, then why did he remain a loyal member of Wright’s congregation for nearly two decades?

3) Why has he released only one page of his medical history, while his principal opponent, John McCain, has released hundreds?

4) Why did he run unopposed in his first electoral campaign as a potential Illinois State Senator, allowing others to challenge successfully the rights of others to run against him?

In conclusion, Caesar Barack Obamaus is a potential emperor without clothe

As for you, I wish you well in mastering seppuku. Maybe you can videotape it and send a copy to Dembski, with the hope he’ll emulate your success.

Dear Mr. Kwok
In response to the preceding, I’m going to address the utter stupidity of your comments.
1) Why is his childhood relevant to the issues at hand?
2) He has addressed this, you just haven’t been paying attention.
3) Medical history, in my opinion, is irrelevant to the issues at hand as well. Also, McCain has hundreds of pages more of medical history than Obama does due to him being elderly.
4) Your last statement is not coherent. He did run against someone, Alan Keyes. Jack Ryan withdrew from the race…

Just because I’m too impatient to wait for McCain to answer the science debates questions, here’s some fun from Pharyngula:
Palin, on the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

Abstinence only programs have had the unfortunate effect of 1) increasing oral and anal sex among teenagers who think they don’t count, 2) increasing teen pregnancy among teenagers who haven’t heard of or who don’t have access to contraceptives, 3) helping to spread STDs because, when they do go out to have sex (because you can’t teach people not to do this), not using a condom because what they were taught was that condoms don’t work.
Moving along:

Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?Why or why not?
SP: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.

So, if ID can’t make it into the classroom then, by the unspecified intelligent agency, neither will actual science.
I wonder if Palin is at least dedicated to civil rights?

Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?Why or why not?
SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.

No! She isn’t! Gosh, I didn’t see that one coming!

So, John Kwok, what do you have to say about your pro-teen pregnancy, pro-std, pro-creationist, anti-science and historically ignorant flag waving Bible thumber of a VP nomination (who couldn’t, by the way, comment previously on what it was that the vice president actually does)?

Neither of your candidates can tell their ass from a hole in the ground.

“Neither of your candidates can tell their ass from a hole in the ground.”

Indeed, some of her answers above actually floored with the ignorance and political naivety they displayed. Palin is one more thing making McCain’s candidacy the most hilarious thing in politics since the Lewinsky scandal, I can only imagine what his potential presidency would be like…

What’s particularly amusing (or rather sad) about this whole argument that Obama is inexperienced is that we did actually have a president once, who was about as young, and had about as much experience as he does when going into the job. As it happens he was also well known to be a great orator, and was actually a republican, back when republicans stood for something other than stupidity. His name was Abraham Lincoln.

On “Face the Nation” this morning, both Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman noted that Obama is the least experienced person running for President in a century. Independently, they noted that our nation needs – and deserves – the experienced, quite capable, leadership which McCain can offer.

Please tell me you’re kidding that you regard Giuliani and Lieberman as an authority on ANYTHING other successful self-aggrandizement! These two slimeballs have offered America absolutely nothing in terms of leadership or integrity. And McCain has demonstrated himself to be a pandering hothead whose primary leadership skill is in getting the media to suck up to him.

3) Explain that he is for clean, reliable nuclear power without specifying which technologies are available for such cleanliness and reliability (Technology which exists apparently in France, since nuclear fission power has provided safe, reliable electricity – up to 40% of the country’s needs – for decades.

I would have liked him to be a bit more specific, as well; but he can only be talking about HTGTR’s, which are NOT used in France.

That’s not quite an accurate historical analogy. Lincoln was well known to abolitionist circles around the country beginning in the late 1840s. He had an excellent career both as an attorney and in the Illinois state legislature. By any objective measure, one can’t compare favorably Obama’s record with Lincoln’s.

You might as well include Geraldine Ferraro too in your list of “slimeballs” since she’s a disillusioned supporter of my current US Senator (Clinton) who has “defected” to support the McCain/Palin ticket.

Most senators in the US Senate would regard Joe Lieberman as one of its premier statesmen. I think your assessment of him is quite incorrect.

You might as well include Geraldine Ferraro too in your list of “slimeballs” since she’s a disillusioned supporter of my current US Senator (Clinton) who has “defected” to support the McCain/Palin ticket.

Ferraro ran up the racist flag during the campaign, so I can certainly tag her appropriately for that. Interestingly, your comment makes the assumption that supporting McCain is what makes someone a slimeball, despite the fact that my comment carried no such assumption either implicitly or explicitly. Lieberman and Giuliani were recognizable slimeballs long before supporting McCain due to being Reich-wing, anti-science, self-serving Dominionist fucks. Add Giuliani’s corruption trough and you’ve got a winning ticket indeed.

Most senators in the US Senate would regard Joe Lieberman as one of its premier statesmen.

So? The Senate has quite a few people who are either Reich-wing, anti-science, Dominionist fucks, or who feel they need to pander to such types.

You think Obama’s career up to now, graduating from harvard with top honors, teaching law at chicago and of course his political success are not a successful career? Give me a break. Hell he got elected to higher office (senate) then Lincoln did before he ran for president. Obama is about 6-7 years younger, that’s about it. I find the comment about Lincoln being well known in abolitionist circles especially funny, since of course abolitionists were the left-wing radicals of the time. If Obama was well known in similiar left-wing circles today he wouldn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of being elected to anything, much less president. I mean imagine if he ever said anything nearly as atheist-sounding as Lincoln (or Jefferson) did – he’d loose right then and there. Unfortunately, we have changed as a country, and not for the better.

If Lieberman is as “bad” as you claim, then surely Al Gore made a serious lapse of judgement by picking him as his running mate back in the 2000 election.

Telling me something I agree with is not a rebuttal. Name dropping is also not a rebuttal. That’s two logic failures in one statement — you have violated the supposed degeneracy of wrong which so many commenters on SB claim exists, and are therefore now my favorite experiment.

Did you know that Obama won his first election to the Illinois Senate unopposed? How? His supporters mounted legal challenges against his potential opponents and had the courts remove them from the ballot. In other words, Obama started in politics by a means that would have been celebrated by legendary New York City Tammany Hall political chief Boss Tweed. In the Illinois Senate, Obama had an undistinguished career (He also had an undistinguished career at the University of Chicago law school too.).

Again, go ahead and compare him to Lincoln. But anyone who looks objectively at their records prior to Lincoln’s election as President of the United States will acknowledge that Lincoln’s record is far more impressive than Obama’s.

Like McCain, Kennedy, and a few other senators, Lieberman is among the US Senate’s most thoughtful members, especially with regards to foreign affairs. He has had a long distinguished history in public service, which included importance service as the CT attorney general.

I was being sarcastic in my previous reply to you about your inane assertion that Lieberman is a “bad” politician.

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. “She asked the library how she could go about banning books,” he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. “The librarian was aghast.” That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn’t be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving “full support” to the mayor.

Like McCain, Kennedy, and a few other senators, Lieberman is among the US Senate’s most thoughtful members, especially with regards to foreign affairs.

Like McCain – though to a much greater degree – Lieberman is chummy with the “End Times” crowd and considered a great friend and “good Jew” to the Xian Reich, and bases much of his foreign policy on their knee-jerk desires. Nothing thoughtful about that.

I was being sarcastic in my previous reply to you about your inane assertion that Lieberman is a “bad” politician.

If Palin acted in such a manner as governor of Alaska, then I’d really be concerned. But no, instead, her performance is more akin to what I’d expect from someone who has similar libertarian attitudes as yours truly. For example, you should read this:

OOOooo a link to a libertarian think tank! I am blow away by the awesome credibility of your news sources.

Anyway, I guess since she only wanted to ban books while she was but a lowly mayor, there’s nothing to worry about. And, as every good libertarian knows, there’s nothing more libertarian than keeping marriage safe from the queers.

Although, she does have some similarities to you. While fighting her Holy Crusade against the dire homosexual agenda, she kept insisting that she couldn’t be anti-gay rights or bigoted because, darn it, she knew some honest-to-God gay people and kinda liked them. That’s a Kwokism if ever there was one.

Wish you much success in mastering seppuku soon. Don’t forget to send a videotape of it to my “pal” Dembski since I want him to follow your example ASAP.

Wouldn’t you rather I didn’t master it, so that it would take me a reeeeaaaaallly long time to die? And once I’m dead, how am I going to mail that tape? Why do you claim to have libertarian politics but you support someone who used her position as governor to railroad a state trooper out of revenge? Do libertarians, champions of small government, not have any problems with nepotism or corruption? What kind of sword should I use? I think you’d like me to use a rusty one, but I don’t think that would be appropriate for mastering seppuku. Also, which feudal lord have I egregiously offended?

Now *that* is funny. So first you’re complaining that Obama wasn’t as good of an attorney as Lincoln, now you’re saying he only won because of legal tricks? As for his supposed undistinguished career, I don’t find it as such from reading the comments of the various people he worked with at the time. He didn’t commit himself strongly into any particular ideology, but he did listen, learn and discuss alot (or so they say). Of course, they aren’t mirror images of each other – hard to imagine any 2 people could be, much less two who lived 150 years apart. But the many similarities are quite striking, in all the important issues in regards to their potential – native intellect, excellent oratory, relative youth, unorthodox thinking, and of course both without much “experience”.

But keep barking, it’s amusing.

Oh wait, that’s probably insulting to dogs, which is a bad idea on this particular blog :).

I said his supporters had his opponents bounced from the ballot. What followed was in essence a Soviet Russian-style form of election in which only one candidate, Barack Obama, was listed. Regrettably this was electoral abuse of the kind practiced in the past for generations by the Chicago Democratic machine and New York City’s Tammany Hall. So much for being a good democrat, right?

Obama may have been a good listener, but he did not show much initiative, in stark contrast to Lincoln, who spoke and wrote much about abolition in the years before 1860. Lincoln was also a successful courtroom attorney and state legislator.

I stand by my earlier observation that Obama is a cypher. We don’t know anything about his early Indonesian childhood. We don’t know anything about his health history, other than a one page summary. If he truly found Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons so offensive, then why was he a member of Wright’s congregation for almost two decades? Don’t be so dismissive of these questions, since they – and others pertaining to his associations with the likes of Rezko and Ayers – raise serious issues regarding the quality of his judgement.

Both blade types were used. Besides, wakizashi was originally applied to any secondary blade carried by a samurai, regardless of length. To add further confusion, blade lengths were never fully standardized, and opinions differed, so you end up with a lot of overlap among the categories, and then you have to add in all the various synonyms used which themselves could apply to one or more of the basic “dagger” “short sword” “long sword” categories, depending on speaker/writer/context.

Basically, for purposes of ritual suicide, use the shortest available blade that can still penetrate the abdominal wall, and you should be OK, etiquette-wise. Of course, any shame incurred by using the improper blade will be immediately compensated for by the actual disemboweling, so really, no worries. As long as you end up dead, with prominently displayed entrails, everything’s cool. If you feel up to it, a short poem expressing your shame and/or something about cherry-blossoms and the change of seasons is always appreciated.

For the truly hardcore and/or deeply shamed individual, it is possible to forgo the second and just agonizingly bleed to death without benefit of merciful decapitation. Word of warning: this may be interpreted as inappropriately prideful and just generally in bad taste. Demanding such from a vassal is also somewhat frowned upon, though of course said vassal must obey. To disobey would incur more shame, but then you’re dead and can’t do anything about it, at which point some relative has to step in and die too as a result of your cowardly wussiness. But that’s neither here nor there.

“hara-kirii” is a more colloquial term; “seppuku” is more formal. It’s sort of like the difference between “firearm” and “gun”, or “fired” and “terminated” only with lots of ritualistic feudal angst attached.

As a former resident of the great state of Arizona, I am delighted with your candidacy for President of the United States, recognizing that you, Senator John McCain, are the sole person who puts “Country First” among our current presidential candidates. Having been one of your constituents for a decade, I also know you possess both the great character and wisdom to become one of our great Presidents. In recognition of these admirable traits of yours, I am writing to warn you of the dangers posed by renewed advocacy of Intelligent Design and other kinds of creationism, since they represent threats to both the intellectual and economic well-being of our great nation, threatening American preeminence in science and technology, and the chance that the 21st Century will become yet another “American Century”. I am urging you to put “Country First” by rejecting demands to have creationism – especially Intelligent Design creationism – taught in American science classrooms alongside modern evolutionary theory.

It is no accident that creationism, including Intelligent Design, is repudiated by the mainstream scientific community. It is a collection of outdated ideas that were rejected soundly by science more than a century and a half ago. Creationism’s current proponents have asserted that they are persecuted by mainstream science for their beliefs, but theirs are claims that are not borne out by the real, honest truth. None have sought to present their work in the valid market of ideas known as peer-reviewed science. No papers of theirs in support of creationism have been presented in scientific meetings, and none have been submitted for publication in notable scientific journals like Nature, Science, Evolution, Ecology, Paleobiology, and Cladistics, among others, demonstrating how and why creationism is a valid scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory. In private e-mail correspondence with two leading advocates of Intelligent Design creationism, mathematician and philosopher William Dembski and biochemist Michael Dembski, I have challenged them to explain how Intelligent Design is a better scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory in explaining the history and structure of Planet Earth’s biodiversity. Neither one has given me an answer. Why? Because they know that Intelligent Design isn’t scientific, and therefore, that it is incapable of being such an alternative.

Back in 1973, the great evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky – one of the architects of modern evolutionary theory – observed, “Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” His accurate comment is confirmed daily by thousands of scientists across the globe, and especially, by many great scientists who are biology professors at Arizona State University and the University of Arizona; the latter my graduate school alma mater. For example, at the University of Arizona, Regents Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Nancy Moran uses techniques from molecular biology and classical entomology to understand the evolution of symbiotic microorganisms in insects; many of those insects that she studies – such as aphids – are economically important agricultural pests. Her colleague Dr. William Schaeffer is noted for his mathematical models of the origin and spread of epidemics, relying on key principles in evolutionary biology for better understanding of public health issues. Their colleague Dr. Michael L. Rosenzweig – my graduate school mentor – is one of the most important evolutionary ecologists of our time, whose research interests have ranged from paleobiology to community ecology, and now, most recently, conservation biology. Their excellent research would be impossible if Intelligent Design or some other kind of creationism was indeed a “scientific theory”; only modern evolutionary theory has enabled them to pose the interesting questions that have led to their successful work. If we are to conquer the 21st Century challenges posed by the spread of virulent disease like HIV/AIDS, the invasions of alien species of animals and plants in North American ecosystems, and the economic damage caused by agricultural pests like aphids, then we can do so only via the science of evolutionary biology, not by invoking creationism’s scientifically discredited ideas dating from the 18th Century and before.

From a religious perspective, as a Deist, I can sympathize with your – and Governor Palin’s – difficulties in accepting modern evolutionary theory. However, great religions like Roman Catholic Christianity see no conflict between modern evolutionary theory and a belief in God. There are many religiously devout scientists, such as eminent ecologist Dr. Michael L. Rosenzweig, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, noted cell biologist Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University, and distinguished molecular biologist Dr. Francis Collins, the former director of the Human Genome Project, who see no contradiction whatsoever between their own personal devoutly held religious beliefs and their commitment to excellence in scientific research (A distinction that eludes still those like Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski.). We should render to science, that which is science, and to religion, that which is religion, without confusing these two distinct, but important, parts of our thought. This doesn’t mean that you should sacrifice your own personal, deeply held, religious beliefs for the sake of science. Distinguished vertebrate paleobiologist Michael Novacek, Vice President and Provost, American Museum of Natural History, has stated that it is not his museum’s mission to change people’s religious views, but rather, to educate them on valid mainstream science, of which modern evolutionary theory is a most essential part.

We are engaged in a titanic struggle for America’s soul, according to Brown cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller’s new book, ‘Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul’. Sadly, I must concur with my friend Ken’s dire warning that we are in danger of losing our preeminence in science and technology – and thus our excellent economy – if creationist advocates succeed in inserting outmoded, religiously-derived ideas like Intelligent Design and other forms of creationism into American science classrooms. Our children must be taught valid mainstream science so we can meet successfully the scientific and technological challenges of the 21st Century, so we can ensure that we are “Country First” with regards to American preeminence in science and technology. I strongly encourage you and your staff to talk to distinguished evolutionary biologists like those I have cited, and to read and to reflect upon Ken Miller’s terse book and Republican Federal Judge Jones’ historic landmark ruling at the end of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, in which Jones recognized that Intelligent Design is not science, but instead, a religiously derived idea promoted by those seeking to insert their religious beliefs and values into science classrooms. Again, in closing, please recognize that we must keep “Country First” by rejecting any and all attempts to inject religion into science classrooms, of which the most blatant examples are the many, still ongoing, attempts to teach Intelligent Design and other kinds of creationism.

AP (Anchorage, AK) – Presumptive VP candidate Sarah Palin announced today that her long history of support for creationism was, “foolishly misguided”. After receiving a letter from Some Guy on The Internet, Palin has evidently reconsidered her position. “What really sold me on the idea,” Palin said, “was Mr. Kwok’s list of science journal titles and a reference to his good friend Kenneth Miller. Anyone who has sleepovers with an actual author and even knows a regent from his university must know what he’s talking about!”
When asked to comment on this change of opinion, McCain’s campaign assured us that they did, in fact, vet Governor Palin. Palin, however, went on to add, “His repeated use of the word ‘distinguished’ made me really horny. I want to fuck his brains out!” McCain’s campaign offices did not return calls asking for clarification on this statement.

You know, I always found Kwok to be a name-dropping sycophant. He likes to insinuate that he is a “player” in the creotard wars, yet no one ever seems to have heard of him. It’s nice to find that my instincts were correct. Kwok’s a McCain supporter? You know, the guy with a creationist running mate? What fucking retard.

Speaking of PT, here’s what one poster had to say about my lengthy missive to McCain:

“Great letter, but I recall McCain admitting that he personally accepts evolution, and have not seen anything indicating that Palin has any personal ‘difficulties’ with it. All I know so far is that they think it’s fair to ‘teach the controversy’……

“My letter will not be as detailed as yours. Since you covered most of the points I’ll focus on the phony ‘critical analysis’ that the activists insist is not the same as ID or creationism. But from which (paraphrasing Judge Jones) any reasonable observer will infer as a defense of creationism.”

I challenge Dustin and others who choose to act like him to try to sit down and write a coherent, persuasive – and polite – e-mail to Senator McCain that is similar to mine. However, I fully expect that Dustin is incapable of it, since he is just as intellectualy-challenged as the DI IDiot Borg drones posting over at Dembski’s Uncommon Descent.

As someone else pointed out to me earlier this spring, we are all in this together (Someone who is a prominent critic of ID creationism.). Why don’t you aim your hatred where it belongs, at those who are espousing the mendacious intellectual pornography known as ID creationism, like those DI IDiot Borg drones posting over at Uncommon Descent.

Otherwise, just continue acting like my dear schmuck Dustin…. or rather, as one Billy Martin once noted of Reggie Jackson and George Steinbrenner, one was born a liar, the other was born convicted.

While I highly respect your lengthy and glorious record as a prisoner of war, I must humbly request that you stop advocating policies which are the only thing keeping your dismal little campaign afloat.

You see, selecting a vice presidential candidate with extremist theocratic leanings, and insinuating support for creationism and other theocratic policies, may have endeared you to the jesused-up base — perhaps the only segment of the population still willing to believe in the failed policies of the last seven years, barring a handful of pompously self-regarding pseudointellectuals — inspiring them to open up their wallets and perhaps actually feel motivated to vote in November. But I, a letter writer from the land of internet, urge you not to continue down this highly profitable path.

To paraphrase Emo Phillips, a great man whom I once regularly played Dungeons and Dragons with, please torpedo your campaign for my benefit.

In conclusion, I know Francis Collins, Ken Miller, Ken Griffey Junior, Bill Nye, the Pope, and the guy who played Xander from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Kwok, for your own good, grow up. The last time I heard somebody try to call on the teacher (erm, authorities) because they couldn’t handle criticism was when I was in 4th or 5th grade, and even back then it was pathetic. You’ve already done it in both threads I’ve posted in. If you were 12 it would be amusing, but I assume you’re over 20 so it’s getting more sad than funny at this point. When you’re past childhood, you’re supposed to be able to handle criticism on your own.

Of course “teach the controversy” is just the new (actually getting old already) language for creationism, so I don’t know how Paulin being for that is supposed to be OK. And btw, if you think Mccain will actually read your long letter anymore then he’d read H.H.’s, or any other random guy on the internet for that matter, you’re delusional. Hell the guy is just now figuring out teh intertoobs.

Moving to a more pleasant subject like suicide, thanks for the clarification on harakiri. I was confused since I always heard it was seppuku, but then when I talked with a japanese friend of mine he always refered to it as harakiri hehe.

I promise I do not mean this to sound in any way rude as there has been more than enough abuse thrown around these parts lately. Do you think there is greater probability of your letter to McCain being read? How would he (or rather one of his staff) know before reading it the difference in tone between your and HH’s letters?

While I applaud any attempt by a private citizen to engage with the political process (and as I have indicated previously, when citizens fail to engage in this way, democracies become dysfunctional), I was disappointed that you have presented a clearly NOMA-derived viewpoint in your letter:

We should render to science, that which is science, and to religion, that which is religion, without confusing these two distinct, but important, parts of our thought. This doesn’t mean that you should sacrifice your own personal, deeply held, religious beliefs for the sake of science.

Do you truly believe science and religion can be reconciled or did you use this as the approach most likely to result in preventing McCain from allowing science classrooms from being invaded by religion?

Finally, John, one polite request: could you please stop name-dropping? It does you no favours.

Wait, it just occurred to me. Dustin, H. H. and a few others of their scumbag ilk were thrown out of PT.

I’m not banned at PT, fool. I’ve commented over there all of twice.

I challenge Dustin and others who choose to act like him to try to sit down and write a coherent, persuasive – and polite – e-mail to Senator McCain that is similar to mine. However, I fully expect that Dustin is incapable of it

That is correct. I am incapable of doing the impossible. There are no letters which can possibly be constructed in such a way as to be coherent or persuasive and still similar to yours.In any case, I have no reason to write any letter to McCain at all. I’m simply not going to vote for him since he has the unfortunate habit of being wrong about almost everything.

What I just posted in reply to H. H. also applies to you. You honestly think McCain would even read your obnoxious little screed?

4. Education. A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th. What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?

Can you point out where in the U.S. Constitution the federal government has any powers enumerated regarding childhood education?

Can you point out where in the U.S. Constitution the federal government has any powers enumerated regarding childhood education?

Constitutional Law: ur doin it rong.
Also, it bothers me that you would so cavalierly attempt to find an excuse for not keeping up with and, indeed, exceeding the educational standards of the rest of the world. But then, you are well known as a blithering wanker with shit-for-brains, so I can understand why you’d like your fellow countrymen to be as confused and ignorant as you are about, well, everything.

Promise me that after John McCain wins the election that you will master seppuku. As for me, I am certain I will perish in an Al Qaeda-organized nuclear attack on New York City if Barack Obama wins the election.

PS: The only reason why I think I might perish in an Al Qaeda nuclear attack on New York City is because Obama, with all of his inexperience, will let his guard down, by relaxing the monitoring of terrorist chatter and thus, inadvertently, allow terrorist infiltration into the United States.

As for me, I am certain I will perish in an Al Qaeda-organized nuclear attack on New York City if Barack Obama wins the election.

It’s amazing to see the Republicans’ fear-mongering working in real time like this. It really is true. While conservatives like to think of themselves as gun toting macho men and liberals as latte sipping pussies, the reality is precisely the reverse. Conservatives and Republicans are afraid of their own shadows. The Bush presidency has done more to foster anti-American sentiment abroad, and thus endanger more American lives, than any administration in history. Yet Kwok has swallowed the kool-aid that it’s Democrats who put us at risk for terrorist attacks. Un-fucking-believable.